In three Super Bowls our offense brought us back from behind to win. That is the biggest, noticeable difference between that offense and our recent offense. I do find it funny that you laud the Giants for using the same style and system of offense on us that we used to run though.

The defense in the last two Super Bowls have given up fewer points than all but one of the three that we won, the Giants punted more than the Patriots did. While I don't claim the present day defenses are as good, 2001 wasn't great, the reality is that doesn't absolve the offense for turning it over twice, only scoring in the teens and having the ball with a minute left then throwing three straight incompletions.

Slowly but surely you are backtracking on how great our offense has been of late, I don't have to back off that the defense was average and played average. When you can finally admit this offense has been anemic against powerful physical defenses like the giants, Ravens, Jets when they were good and the Broncos then maybe this conversation will finally be over.

I'm quite sure you're right Wozzy. An offense that gains 315 yards per game and scores 32 TDs and 299 points over the season is clearly better than one that gains 428 yards per game and scores 57 TDs and 483 points over the season. The sun rises in the West too, the Earth is flat, and little green men wander around on Mars.

[object HTMLDivElement]

No, but the offense that scores 15.5 points per game in its last 6 straight playoff losses surely didn't compare to the dynastys ball control offense that won 3 Superbowls in 4 years.

Am I right? Or was the defense the reason we scored more and played better in all 3 phases of the game, and the defense is also now the reason our offense cant get 1st downs, extend drives, eat clock and score points in the biggest games of the year?

[object HTMLDivElement]

The D is at least 80% of the reason with about 20% being errors.

You can't eat clock if the D is eating clock. There are only so many pieces to the pie and when the D is eating 2/3rds of it, that doesn't leave much for the O. The ideal would be a 50/50 split where the O wouldn't be rushed into plays and able to take their time and run the same amount of plays the other O is privy to. Because of the pathetic D, the other O had all day to run whatever they wanted.

There wasn't anyone there to stop them.

Reduced time means reduced plays, PERIOD! There are only so many plays you can fit into a 20 minute period. so you become more about moving the ball in big chunks, not a lot of little time consuming ones. 30 minutes allows for more time, therefore more plays or more plays that you can take your time with.

This forces you off your normal game and one dimensional. It becomes more about time and the number of plays you can run in that time, therefore the short yardage time consuming (RUN) plays are thrown out the window.

This also makes you more prone to mistakes as you are throwing the ball further to try and make up for the lack of time.

Scoring takes time and scoring takes possessions as the average NFL team will only score a TD on about 20% of their possessions. (1 out of every 5 or 2 per game) When 10 possessions don't exist it's difficult to score 2 TD's, never mind 3 or more. Almost no one does that and no one does it consistently. How many 3TD games do you see with a whole 12 possessions?.

Comparatively, very few.

Peyton only scored 2 in his 7 possession, romp. (so did TB for that matter) but that is why Peyton and ELi were both very content in eating clock and scoring FG's.

For every (excessive) minute that they bled, to score those FG's, they knew Tom didn't have a chance to score any.

He was too busy on the bench, trying to keep his head up, as he knew that their chances were deteriorating with every passing minute. So did BB. So did McDaniels.

Then, throw in the fact that the D was allowing points on 50-88% of all possessions and our O was playing against D's that actually participated in their teams success and not only are you screwed, you are triple screwed.

You can't eat clock if the D is eating clock. There are only so many pieces to the pie and when the D is eating 2/3rds of it, that doesn't leave much for the O. The ideal would be a 50/50 split where the O wouldn't be rushed into plays and able to take their time and run the same amount of plays the other O is privy to. Because of the pathetic D, the other O had all day to run whatever they wanted.

There wasn't anyone there to stop them.

Reduced time means reduced plays, PERIOD! There are only so many plays you can fit into a 20 minute period. so you become more about moving the ball in big chunks, not a lot of little time consuming ones. 30 minutes allows for more time, therefore more plays or more plays that you can take your time with.

This forces you off your normal game and one dimensional. It becomes more about time and the number of plays you can run in that time, therefore the short yardage time consuming (RUN) plays are thrown out the window.

This also makes you more prone to mistakes as you are throwing the ball further to try and make up for the lack of time.

Scoring takes time and scoring takes possessions as the average NFL team will only score a TD on about 20% of their possessions. (1 out of every 5 or 2 per game) When 10 possessions don't exist it's difficult to score 2 TD's, never mind 3 or more. Almost no one does that and no one does it consistently. How many 3TD games do you see with a whole 12 possessions?.

Comparatively, very few.

Peyton only scored 2 in his 7 possession, romp. (so did TB for that matter) but that is why Peyton and ELi were both very content in eating clock and scoring FG's.

For every (excessive) minute that they bled, to score those FG's, they knew Tom didn't have a chance to score any.

He was too busy on the bench, trying to keep his head up, as he knew that their chances were deteriorating with every passing minute. So did BB. So did McDaniels.

Then, throw in the fact that the D was allowing points on 50-88% of all possessions and our O was playing against D's that actually participated in their teams success and not only are you screwed, you are triple screwed.

Thanks, BB for stacking the cards against us!!!

I always thought being behind late in a game is what led to a team becoming one-dimensional. I didn't realize that being ahead had the same effect. I'm not about to argue that the defense could not have done better (regarding their most recent SB)...it would have been nice to see just a couple of three-and-outs. Still, the offense had the lead for a good deal of time, in the second half.

Going back to that miscue on their very first drive of the game...exactly how did the defense deny them potential time of possession? It was there for the taking, but the offense gave the ball right back. You keep talking about how the D needs to help the O, well, the O needs to help the D, just as much.

The way you credit the opposition's D, makes it sound like they were world beaters. The problem is, they weren't. The Giants' D that year averaged 25 points against (25th). The Patriots' D gave up, on average, 21 (15th). On offense, the Giants scored 25 points per game (9th) and the Patriots scored 32 (3rd). In SB 46, the Patriots gave up 21 points (nothing, if not consistent). That was against the ninth best offense and the Patriots held them below their season average, by 4 points. Now, the Patriots' O only managed 17 points against the 25th ranked D and they had the third best O. Sorry, but the offense should have done better.

The defense gave up one score in the first half and that was on a very short field, due to the safety. In the second half, they gave up two field goals and a touchdown. Our offense, the 3rd ranked offense, got shutout in two quarters. That's not on the defense.

I always thought being behind late in a game is what led to a team becoming one-dimensional. I didn't realize that being ahead had the same effect. I'm not about to argue that the defense could not have done better (regarding their most recent SB)...it would have been nice to see just a couple of three-and-outs. Still, the offense had the lead for a good deal of time, in the second half.

Going back to that miscue on their very first drive of the game...exactly how did the defense deny them potential time of possession? It was there for the taking, but the offense gave the ball right back. You keep talking about how the D needs to help the O, well, the O needs to help the D, just as much.

The way you credit the opposition's D, makes it sound like they were world beaters. The problem is, they weren't. The Giants' D that year averaged 25 points against (25th). The Patriots' D gave up, on average, 21 (15th). On offense, the Giants scored 25 points per game (9th) and the Patriots scored 32 (3rd). In SB 46, the Patriots gave up 21 points (nothing, if not consistent). That was against the ninth best offense and the Patriots held them below their season average, by 4 points. Now, the Patriots' O only managed 17 points against the 25th ranked D and they had the third best O. Sorry, but the offense should have done better.

The defense gave up one score in the first half and that was on a very short field, due to the safety. In the second half, they gave up two field goals and a touchdown. Our offense, the 3rd ranked offense, got shutout in two quarters. That's not on the defense.

Good, definitive post. The defense was average in the regular season and played average in the post season, the offense was amazing and played terribly in the playoffs. Why that is so hard for posters to accept is beyond me.

You can't eat clock if the D is eating clock. There are only so many pieces to the pie and when the D is eating 2/3rds of it, that doesn't leave much for the O. The ideal would be a 50/50 split where the O wouldn't be rushed into plays and able to take their time and run the same amount of plays the other O is privy to. Because of the pathetic D, the other O had all day to run whatever they wanted.

There wasn't anyone there to stop them.

Reduced time means reduced plays, PERIOD! There are only so many plays you can fit into a 20 minute period. so you become more about moving the ball in big chunks, not a lot of little time consuming ones. 30 minutes allows for more time, therefore more plays or more plays that you can take your time with.

This forces you off your normal game and one dimensional. It becomes more about time and the number of plays you can run in that time, therefore the short yardage time consuming (RUN) plays are thrown out the window.

This also makes you more prone to mistakes as you are throwing the ball further to try and make up for the lack of time.

Scoring takes time and scoring takes possessions as the average NFL team will only score a TD on about 20% of their possessions. (1 out of every 5 or 2 per game) When 10 possessions don't exist it's difficult to score 2 TD's, never mind 3 or more. Almost no one does that and no one does it consistently. How many 3TD games do you see with a whole 12 possessions?.

Comparatively, very few.

Peyton only scored 2 in his 7 possession, romp. (so did TB for that matter) but that is why Peyton and ELi were both very content in eating clock and scoring FG's.

For every (excessive) minute that they bled, to score those FG's, they knew Tom didn't have a chance to score any.

He was too busy on the bench, trying to keep his head up, as he knew that their chances were deteriorating with every passing minute. So did BB. So did McDaniels.

Then, throw in the fact that the D was allowing points on 50-88% of all possessions and our O was playing against D's that actually participated in their teams success and not only are you screwed, you are triple screwed.

Thanks, BB for stacking the cards against us!!!

I always thought being behind late in a game is what led to a team becoming one-dimensional. I didn't realize that being ahead had the same effect. I'm not about to argue that the defense could not have done better (regarding their most recent SB)...it would have been nice to see just a couple of three-and-outs. Still, the offense had the lead for a good deal of time, in the second half.

Going back to that miscue on their very first drive of the game...exactly how did the defense deny them potential time of possession? It was there for the taking, but the offense gave the ball right back. You keep talking about how the D needs to help the O, well, the O needs to help the D, just as much.

The way you credit the opposition's D, makes it sound like they were world beaters. The problem is, they weren't. The Giants' D that year averaged 25 points against (25th). The Patriots' D gave up, on average, 21 (15th). On offense, the Giants scored 25 points per game (9th) and the Patriots scored 32 (3rd). In SB 46, the Patriots gave up 21 points (nothing, if not consistent). That was against the ninth best offense and the Patriots held them below their season average, by 4 points. Now, the Patriots' O only managed 17 points against the 25th ranked D and they had the third best O. Sorry, but the offense should have done better.

The defense gave up one score in the first half and that was on a very short field, due to the safety. In the second half, they gave up two field goals and a touchdown. Our offense, the 3rd ranked offense, got shutout in two quarters. That's not on the defense.

[object HTMLDivElement]

They weren't world beaters, actually average. But it is an average D who gets a turn-over or forces a couple of 3 & outs and stops the team from advancing beyond the 50. Yup, pretty much any D could do that and I would expect a SB D to at least do what an average D could. Ours did none of that.

Ours held the ball for double the league average. That caused our O to loose 10 minutes of possession time. That gave the other O an additional 10 minutes of possession time.

When one team has a 20 minute advantage, they can pretty much run what they want against the crappy D that allowed them to have that advantage in the first place. No one was stopping them!

Yes, you go into throw it mode when you are losing (generally in the 4th quarter), but you also do it because you are running out of time, or there would be no need to do that,.

Normally in the 4th quarter you will get the ball three times.

The Pats had the ball 4 times in the entire second half. Pretty much the half equaled a quarter as far as possessions went. It was apparent as they had already lost that time and 4 possessions before they even reached the 4th quarter. It was also apparent that the D wasn't going to hold the 8 point lead. They hadn't all year. Generally needed a 3 score lead to survive, so, 8 points wasn't enough.

Did you think the D could have kept the Gints O on the bench for the entire second half? NOPE!

They were going to get possessions and all they needed was 4 to win it. Scoring on 3 of 4 drives will do that. Teams don't normally score on 3 of 4 drives unless they are playing a very bad D.

So, they had to try and extend that lead, quickly, with limited time on the arm of TB.

Again, you can't run those dink and dunk &, short yardage run plays to go 80 yards with very little time. You do that when you want to eat clock. The D did not give them that time.

Do you think it's coincidence they abandon the run in these low possession games or games where they are in a dog fight to keep their lead or extend it so that the D can't give it away? It's not.

These coaches are not stupid. They're doing what gives them the best chance to win.

Sure the 4 dropped passes in the second half and the Int didn't help the O's cause, Tom could have tucked that ball and scrambled for a few yards. I think under normal circumstances, he would have.

Unfortunately, there was nothing normal about his circumstance. How many games have you seen where the D is on the field for 2/3rds a game and that team won. How many 7-8 possession games have you seen in your lifetime?. The only ones I've ever seen were the ones the Pats D was highlighting.

Did you ever notice you make more mistakes when you are in a hurry? Ever take shortcuts to make up for lost time? I have. I think everyone has. It's unfortunate they were put in that situation.

Most NFL D's would never do that to their O. Not the ones that were any good, any way.

Did anybody think that the Pats D was going to win the SB? No. You have to admit that it was all on Brady and the offense to get the job done. If the offense didn't show up the Pats were going to lose. They didn't show up and they lost. The defense did what it had always done. No three and outs. Bend but don't break. In the end the defense was consistent in what they did.

I always thought being behind late in a game is what led to a team becoming one-dimensional. I didn't realize that being ahead had the same effect. I'm not about to argue that the defense could not have done better (regarding their most recent SB)...it would have been nice to see just a couple of three-and-outs. Still, the offense had the lead for a good deal of time, in the second half.

Going back to that miscue on their very first drive of the game...exactly how did the defense deny them potential time of possession? It was there for the taking, but the offense gave the ball right back. You keep talking about how the D needs to help the O, well, the O needs to help the D, just as much.

The way you credit the opposition's D, makes it sound like they were world beaters. The problem is, they weren't. The Giants' D that year averaged 25 points against (25th). The Patriots' D gave up, on average, 21 (15th). On offense, the Giants scored 25 points per game (9th) and the Patriots scored 32 (3rd). In SB 46, the Patriots gave up 21 points (nothing, if not consistent). That was against the ninth best offense and the Patriots held them below their season average, by 4 points. Now, the Patriots' O only managed 17 points against the 25th ranked D and they had the third best O. Sorry, but the offense should have done better.

The defense gave up one score in the first half and that was on a very short field, due to the safety. In the second half, they gave up two field goals and a touchdown. Our offense, the 3rd ranked offense, got shutout in two quarters. That's not on the defense.

Good, definitive post. The defense was average in the regular season and played average in the post season, the offense was amazing and played terribly in the playoffs. Why that is so hard for posters to accept is beyond me.

[object HTMLDivElement]

Uggggg Here's a hint: During the regular season the O has approx 30 minutes and 12 possessions to play their game.

Result 12 wins and an average of over 30 points. Three loses last year were low possession games.

Hmmmm. For some reason when they only have 20-22 minutes on the field and significantly less chances to score, they seem to always score less points and lose.

Did anybody think that the Pats D was going to win the SB? No. You have to admit that it was all on Brady and the offense to get the job done. If the offense didn't show up the Pats were going to lose. They didn't show up and they lost. The defense did what it had always done. No three and outs. Bend but don't break. In the end the defense was consistent in what they did.

[object HTMLDivElement]

Not exactly. They did have 3 & outs and plenty of interceptions and fumble recoveries during the regular season. They were bad at 3rd downs and yards and giving up the big play.

They also managed to have an average ToP 0f 31 minutes per game and gave the O, 12 possessions to work with on average.

In the Super Bowl, they were still bad at 3rd downs and yards and big plays, but added no 3 & outs and no TO's and no stops before the 50 and doubled their average time per possession from a little over 2.5 minutes to almost 5 minutes, to their resume.

Did anybody think that the Pats D was going to win the SB? No. You have to admit that it was all on Brady and the offense to get the job done. If the offense didn't show up the Pats were going to lose. They didn't show up and they lost. The defense did what it had always done. No three and outs. Bend but don't break. In the end the defense was consistent in what they did.

In other words, the defense was not a championship defense and no one expected it to be. Everyone laid their hopes purely on the offense. Unfortunately in SB 46, the offense (with its key offensive weapon hobbled) couldn't deliver. This doesn't make the offense, which was highly effective most of the season, a bad one. Nor does it make the defense a good one. This is where Champ and Wozzy are drawing conclusions that are too broad. You can't say that O'Brien's or McDaniels offenses were worse than Weis's simply because the team Weis was on won the Super Bowl and the teams O'Brien and McDaniels were on didn't. If you apply that logic, then David Patten clearly is a better receiver than Randy Moss because Patton has a ring, and Daniel Graham is better than Rob Gronkowski for the same reason. Winning or losing a Super Bowl is clearly the ultimate goal, but whether you achieve that goal or not doesn't fully define whether you were a great or a poor player, coach, or even team.

Not exactly. They did have 3 & outs and plenty of interceptions and fumble recoveries during the regular season. They were bad at 3rd downs and yards and giving up the big play.

They also managed to have an average ToP 0f 31 minutes per game and gave the O, 12 possessions to work with on average.

In the Super Bowl, they were still bad at 3rd downs and yards and big plays, but added no 3 & outs and no TO's and no stops before the 50 and doubled their average time per possession from a little over 2.5 minutes to almost 5 minutes, to their resume.

I'd say, that made them twice as bad.

O's cant score when they are not on the field, unfortunately.

The defense had 3 forced fumbles, one recovered then negated by penalty. They also had a three and out negated by penalty. It wasn't their best day but not bad. Sometimes the ball doesn't bounce your way.

If the defense was better, they would have won. If the offense was better, they would have won. If the special teams were better, they would have won. If the coaching was better, they would have won. If they had more time, they would have won. It was that close.

In three Super Bowls our offense brought us back from behind to win. That is the biggest, noticeable difference between that offense and our recent offense. I do find it funny that you laud the Giants for using the same style and system of offense on us that we used to run though.

The defense in the last two Super Bowls have given up fewer points than all but one of the three that we won, the Giants punted more than the Patriots did. While I don't claim the present day defenses are as good, 2001 wasn't great, the reality is that doesn't absolve the offense for turning it over twice, only scoring in the teens and having the ball with a minute left then throwing three straight incompletions.

Slowly but surely you are backtracking on how great our offense has been of late, I don't have to back off that the defense was average and played average. When you can finally admit this offense has been anemic against powerful physical defenses like the giants, Ravens, Jets when they were good and the Broncos then maybe this conversation will finally be over.

I'm quite sure you're right Wozzy. An offense that gains 315 yards per game and scores 32 TDs and 299 points over the season is clearly better than one that gains 428 yards per game and scores 57 TDs and 483 points over the season. The sun rises in the West too, the Earth is flat, and little green men wander around on Mars.

[object HTMLDivElement]

No, but the offense that scores 15.5 points per game in its last 6 straight playoff losses surely didn't compare to the dynastys ball control offense that won 3 Superbowls in 4 years.

Am I right? Or was the defense the reason we scored more and played better in all 3 phases of the game, and the defense is also now the reason our offense cant get 1st downs, extend drives, eat clock and score points in the biggest games of the year?

In the playoffs, the SB winning teams (2001, 2003, and 2004) averaged 20.8 points scored by the offense per game and 17.4 points given up by the defense per game.

The six teams you refer to (2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013) had the following per game averages in the playoffs: 24.8 points scored by the offense per game, and 21.8 points given up by the defense per game.

Obviously, the first three teams won their final games and the last six teams lost their final games. But looking at the playoffs as a whole, the first three teams were clearly weaker on offense and stronger on defense. To say that Weis's offenses were clearly better in the playoffsthan O'Brien's and McDaniels' isn't really justified by point totals. The six losing offenses averaged 4.0 points per playoff game more than the three winning teams. The six losing defenses gave up on average 4.4 points per playoff game more.

In three Super Bowls our offense brought us back from behind to win. That is the biggest, noticeable difference between that offense and our recent offense. I do find it funny that you laud the Giants for using the same style and system of offense on us that we used to run though.

The defense in the last two Super Bowls have given up fewer points than all but one of the three that we won, the Giants punted more than the Patriots did. While I don't claim the present day defenses are as good, 2001 wasn't great, the reality is that doesn't absolve the offense for turning it over twice, only scoring in the teens and having the ball with a minute left then throwing three straight incompletions.

Slowly but surely you are backtracking on how great our offense has been of late, I don't have to back off that the defense was average and played average. When you can finally admit this offense has been anemic against powerful physical defenses like the giants, Ravens, Jets when they were good and the Broncos then maybe this conversation will finally be over.

I'm quite sure you're right Wozzy. An offense that gains 315 yards per game and scores 32 TDs and 299 points over the season is clearly better than one that gains 428 yards per game and scores 57 TDs and 483 points over the season. The sun rises in the West too, the Earth is flat, and little green men wander around on Mars.

[object HTMLDivElement]

No, but the offense that scores 15.5 points per game in its last 6 straight playoff losses surely didn't compare to the dynastys ball control offense that won 3 Superbowls in 4 years.

Am I right? Or was the defense the reason we scored more and played better in all 3 phases of the game, and the defense is also now the reason our offense cant get 1st downs, extend drives, eat clock and score points in the biggest games of the year?

In the playoffs, the SB winning teams (2001, 2003, and 2004) averaged 20.8 points scored by the offense per game and 17.4 points given up by the defense per game.

The six teams you refer to (2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013) had the following per game averages in the playoffs: 24.8 points scored by the offense per game, and 21.8 points given up by the defense per game.

Obviously, the first three teams won their final games and the last six teams lost their final games. But looking at the playoffs as a whole, the first three teams were clearly weaker on offense and stronger on defense. To say that Weis's offenses were clearly better in the playoffsthan O'Brien's and McDaniels' isn't really justified by point totals. The six losing offenses averaged 4.0 points per playoff game more than the three winning teams. The six losing defenses gave up on average 4.4 points per playoff game more.

[object HTMLDivElement]

This limited mind set is the very reason this discussion lingers on.

You're a lingerer man.

The high flying pass heavy post 2007 offense scored 35 a game in the regular season, but were absolutely crushed by good playoff teams. The reason the dynasty offense scored less is because they were more concerned with balance and all 3 phases working hand in hand.

When you count 40 point blow outs against teams like Tebows Broncos and the texans, yes the post 07 playoff offense looks respectible, but when you see a Tom Brady lead offense score 14, 13, 21, 17, 13, 16(which was really 3 against denver before scrub time scoring) in 6 straight playoff losses you realize that the comparison between the 2 era's isn't even close.

In three Super Bowls our offense brought us back from behind to win. That is the biggest, noticeable difference between that offense and our recent offense. I do find it funny that you laud the Giants for using the same style and system of offense on us that we used to run though.

The defense in the last two Super Bowls have given up fewer points than all but one of the three that we won, the Giants punted more than the Patriots did. While I don't claim the present day defenses are as good, 2001 wasn't great, the reality is that doesn't absolve the offense for turning it over twice, only scoring in the teens and having the ball with a minute left then throwing three straight incompletions.

Slowly but surely you are backtracking on how great our offense has been of late, I don't have to back off that the defense was average and played average. When you can finally admit this offense has been anemic against powerful physical defenses like the giants, Ravens, Jets when they were good and the Broncos then maybe this conversation will finally be over.

I'm quite sure you're right Wozzy. An offense that gains 315 yards per game and scores 32 TDs and 299 points over the season is clearly better than one that gains 428 yards per game and scores 57 TDs and 483 points over the season. The sun rises in the West too, the Earth is flat, and little green men wander around on Mars.

[object HTMLDivElement]

No, but the offense that scores 15.5 points per game in its last 6 straight playoff losses surely didn't compare to the dynastys ball control offense that won 3 Superbowls in 4 years.

Am I right? Or was the defense the reason we scored more and played better in all 3 phases of the game, and the defense is also now the reason our offense cant get 1st downs, extend drives, eat clock and score points in the biggest games of the year?

In the playoffs, the SB winning teams (2001, 2003, and 2004) averaged 20.8 points scored by the offense per game and 17.4 points given up by the defense per game.

The six teams you refer to (2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013) had the following per game averages in the playoffs: 24.8 points scored by the offense per game, and 21.8 points given up by the defense per game.

Obviously, the first three teams won their final games and the last six teams lost their final games. But looking at the playoffs as a whole, the first three teams were clearly weaker on offense and stronger on defense. To say that Weis's offenses were clearly better in the playoffsthan O'Brien's and McDaniels' isn't really justified by point totals. The six losing offenses averaged 4.0 points per playoff game more than the three winning teams. The six losing defenses gave up on average 4.4 points per playoff game more.

[object HTMLDivElement]

This limited mind set is the very reason this discussion lingers on.

You're a lingerer man.

The high flying pass heavy post 2007 offense scored 35 a game in the regular season, but were absolutely crushed by good playoff teams. The reason the dynasty offense scored less is because they were more concerned with balance and all 3 phases working hand in hand.

When you count 40 point blow outs against teams like Tebows Broncos and the texans, yes the post 07 playoff offense looks respectible, but when you see a Tom Brady lead offense score 14, 13, 21, 17, 13, 16(which was really 3 against denver before scrub time scoring) in 6 straight playoff losses you realize that the comparison between the 2 era's isn't even close.

But why would you let that stop you? You've come all this way....

[object HTMLDivElement]

Pretty sure it wasn't scrub time as the last time they played, TB scored 3 or was it 4 TD's in the last 4 possessions. He was on his way to doing it again before time ran out. Ohhhhh to have those possessions and all that time the D wasted, back.

In three Super Bowls our offense brought us back from behind to win. That is the biggest, noticeable difference between that offense and our recent offense. I do find it funny that you laud the Giants for using the same style and system of offense on us that we used to run though.

The defense in the last two Super Bowls have given up fewer points than all but one of the three that we won, the Giants punted more than the Patriots did. While I don't claim the present day defenses are as good, 2001 wasn't great, the reality is that doesn't absolve the offense for turning it over twice, only scoring in the teens and having the ball with a minute left then throwing three straight incompletions.

Slowly but surely you are backtracking on how great our offense has been of late, I don't have to back off that the defense was average and played average. When you can finally admit this offense has been anemic against powerful physical defenses like the giants, Ravens, Jets when they were good and the Broncos then maybe this conversation will finally be over.

I'm quite sure you're right Wozzy. An offense that gains 315 yards per game and scores 32 TDs and 299 points over the season is clearly better than one that gains 428 yards per game and scores 57 TDs and 483 points over the season. The sun rises in the West too, the Earth is flat, and little green men wander around on Mars.

[object HTMLDivElement]

No, but the offense that scores 15.5 points per game in its last 6 straight playoff losses surely didn't compare to the dynastys ball control offense that won 3 Superbowls in 4 years.

Am I right? Or was the defense the reason we scored more and played better in all 3 phases of the game, and the defense is also now the reason our offense cant get 1st downs, extend drives, eat clock and score points in the biggest games of the year?

In the playoffs, the SB winning teams (2001, 2003, and 2004) averaged 20.8 points scored by the offense per game and 17.4 points given up by the defense per game.

The six teams you refer to (2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013) had the following per game averages in the playoffs: 24.8 points scored by the offense per game, and 21.8 points given up by the defense per game.

Obviously, the first three teams won their final games and the last six teams lost their final games. But looking at the playoffs as a whole, the first three teams were clearly weaker on offense and stronger on defense. To say that Weis's offenses were clearly better in the playoffsthan O'Brien's and McDaniels' isn't really justified by point totals. The six losing offenses averaged 4.0 points per playoff game more than the three winning teams. The six losing defenses gave up on average 4.4 points per playoff game more.

[object HTMLDivElement]

This limited mind set is the very reason this discussion lingers on.

You're a lingerer man.

The high flying pass heavy post 2007 offense scored 35 a game in the regular season, but were absolutely crushed by good playoff teams. The reason the dynasty offense scored less is because they were more concerned with balance and all 3 phases working hand in hand.

When you count 40 point blow outs against teams like Tebows Broncos and the texans, yes the post 07 playoff offense looks respectible, but when you see a Tom Brady lead offense score 14, 13, 21, 17, 13, 16(which was really 3 against denver before scrub time scoring) in 6 straight playoff losses you realize that the comparison between the 2 era's isn't even close.

But why would you let that stop you? You've come all this way....

Actually, I keep broadening my understanding of the game by analyzing the data in ever more depth. You and Wozzy long ago settled on your opinions, which is why you sit there so puzzled when Bill Belichick, seven years in, continues to field "high flying passing offenses," despite what you know is right. You're like Rusty who keeps shouting that Brady is a problem . . . and yet has to endure Belichick trotting him out every year. You and Wozzy keep complaining about the passing game and longing for more running, but Belichick keeps disappointing you.

I've found that the greatest pleasure in being a Pats fan is trying to understand why Belichick does what he does--and maybe more important, trying to understand why what Belichick does is the right thing to do, even if it seems to fly against the "wisdom" of fans like you and Wozzy. I think Belichick is hardly ever wrong when it comes to strategy. I think he's the best coach in the NFL today and maybe in the NFL's history. I want to understand why he does what he does. You and Wozzy just want to complain that he doesn't get football as well as you do.

Maybe someday he'll hear your complaints. But for now, I'm pretty happy trying to understand exactly why he's chosen to go with high flying passing offenses and why, ultimately, that was the best choice even if it didn't produce a Super Bowl ring.

As David Halberstam writes in Education of a Coach, it was a tough sell before the 1991 Super Bowl against Buffalo. The New York Giants played a physical defense that prided itself on not allowing 100 yard rushers.

No matter, the short, stout coach looked straight into the eyes of Lawrence Taylor and Pepper Johnson and said, “You guys have to believe me. If Thomas runs for a hundred yards, we win this game.”

Just in case his players didn’t listen, Belichick took it upon himself to ensure Thomas got his yards. He took out a defensive lineman and linebacker and replaced these large bodies with two defensive backs. In football lingo, the Giants played a 2-3-6 defense designed to struggle against the run.

Did Bill Belichick go insane? I certainly thought so when I first read this story years ago.

Just wanted to say keep up the great analysis. I might not agree with every point but I always enjoy your take. Also just know some people never admit the D got man handled by the giants. Their offense dictated that game and the D did nothing to stop it. No matter what anyone says the D job is to get the ball back for the offense. Even in what they called the bend but not break heyday they never let TOP get so skewed. Not saying that the Offense was great by any means but just looking at the end score does not tell anything about how the D played. If you tell any couch that their D will not get one three and out or turn over, let the other team control TOP almost 2 to 1 and score on 50%or more of drives how many would say they could win that game?

It's an interesting analysis, Pezz. Thanks for the link. If you look at the data, it's very clear that passing efficiency correlates with wins much better than any other offensive stat. I wouldn't go so far as to say running is irrelevant--I think it's an important part of any offensive game plan. It certainly is better than passing in many game situations, and having a good running game forces the defense to adjust to it, often putting the defense at a disadvantage when the offense does pass. But the fact is the most successful offenses (measured by their ability to score, which correlates highly with their ability to win) are those that get the best yardage on their pass plays (taking into account sacks and interceptions). They don't necessarily pass the most, but when they do pass, they are highly efficient.

Champ and Wozzy long ago made up their minds that the Patriots pass too much and need to run more. They ignore all the data that shows that the Pats' offense has been one of the most productive in the NFL, both in the regular season and in the playoffs. They dismiss high scoring games as irrelevant and look only at losses where the Pats passed a lot and didn't score much (a tiny number of games over seven seasons). They ignore the fact that pass-run ratios are largely based on game situation. Most teams don't run a lot if they're in a lot of third and longs or if they don't have a secure lead late in the game. Those situations (often losing ones) require passing. They also ignore the fact that the Pats in the SB winning years passed a lot too and that the team still runs at an average clip. So the perception that the Pats were a running team in the Super Bowl years and a passing team today is a little exaggerated. There has been an evolution to more passing (all across the league actually), but the change is incremental, not extreme. And of course, Wozzy and Champ tend to ignore the fact that Super Bowl and AFC Championship losses were the result of many things--not just offensive play calling. There were injuries and execution failures in all three phases of the game. And there were quality players on the other teams, too, who made plays. Attributing every loss solely to pass-run ratio is to put on blinders and fail to see the big picture.

Mostly, though, Champ and Wozzy don't pause to ask a simple questions: If passing so much is bad, why over seven seasons is Bill Belichick still allowing it to happen? My fundamental assumption in all of this debate is to assume two things:

Bill Belichick knows more about football than me or anyone posting on this website

If Bill Belichick does something (or allows his coaches to do something) for seven years, it must be the right thing to do

Starting from those two premises, I want to understand exactly why Belichick does what he does because I think that will help me understand the game better. I'm not interested in stubbornly defending my point of view. I want to learn as much as possible from the coach who I believe is the best in the game, ever. I want to understand how he's managed to produce absurd win totals for a decade and a half in an era when maintaining quality talent is so hard to do and the teams he's coached have had obvious talent gaps that he's had to overcome. To me, that's the most interesting thing about being a Pats fan these past 15 years. How does Belichick do it, given the clear flaws in some of his teams? How does he go to the Super Bowl with guys like Antuwan Molden (now on a practice squad in the CFL, I believe) playing big roles. It's amazing. I think the way the offense has been designed the past few years is part of the reason the Pats have been so successful despite such a weak secondary. I want to understand that. Mostly, I want to appreciate it. What bothers me most about the incessant whining of Champ in particular is not that it's as ignorant as it is, but that its so damn unappreciative of the genius we all are privileged to be watching on Sundays.

Just wanted to say keep up the great analysis. I might not agree with every point but I always enjoy your take. Also just know some people never admit the D got man handled by the giants. Their offense dictated that game and the D did nothing to stop it. No matter what anyone says the D job is to get the ball back for the offense. Even in what they called the bend but not break heyday they never let TOP get so skewed. Not saying that the Offense was great by any means but just looking at the end score does not tell anything about how the D played. If you tell any couch that their D will not get one three and out or turn over, let the other team control TOP almost 2 to 1 and score on 50%or more of drives how many would say they could win that game?

But, TOP is not dictated by the D alone. The O has to carry some of the responsibility. In fact, I would say most of the responsibility. I mean, after all, they have the ball. In the first half of SB 46, the D held the Giants to 7 points, just one score. The O spotted the Giants 2 points and then set them up with incredible field position. The D shutout the Giants in the second quarter.

In the second half, the Patriots jumped out to a 17 to 9 lead. That was great, but suddenly they couldn't do anything right. Wes should have caught the ball (granted, it wasn't TB's best pass) and TB should not have thrown such an awful interception. The D, on the other hand, slowed down the Giants, but couldn't find a way to stop them entirely.

When you compare the performances of the O and the D you find that the D actually played to their season average -- 21 points against. The O, however, was well below what they averaged for the season. Both units suffered from misplays.

Another interesting fact is that the D's performance, in terms of points allowed in the second half, was the best of all the past five SB's the Patriots have been in. That includes the three that they won. In terms of the overall points scored against them, it was the team's third best performance. Do you know which game came in second? That would be Super Bowl 42. So, their two losses rank in the top three, in terms of points scored against them.

That doesn't mean that I don't wish that they could have done better. I do. However, I wish, even more, that the offense could have performed just a little bit closer to their seasonal average.

Actually, I keep broadening my understanding of the game by analyzing the data in ever more depth. You and Wozzy long ago settled on your opinions, which is why you sit there so puzzled when Bill Belichick, seven years in, continues to field "high flying passing offenses," despite what you know is right. You're like Rusty who keeps shouting that Brady is a problem . . . and yet has to endure Belichick trotting him out every year. You and Wozzy keep complaining about the passing game and longing for more running, but Belichick keeps disappointing you.

I've found that the greatest pleasure in being a Pats fan is trying to understand why Belichick does what he does--and maybe more important, trying to understand why what Belichick does is the right thing to do, even if it seems to fly against the "wisdom" of fans like you and Wozzy. I think Belichick is hardly ever wrong when it comes to strategy. I think he's the best coach in the NFL today and maybe in the NFL's history. I want to understand why he does what he does. You and Wozzy just want to complain that he doesn't get football as well as you do.

Maybe someday he'll hear your complaints. But for now, I'm pretty happy trying to understand exactly why he's chosen to go with high flying passing offenses and why, ultimately, that was the best choice even if it didn't produce a Super Bowl ring.

The last bastion of a lost argument on this forum, the "you think you know more than Belichick" defense. This conversation has jumped the shark.

Talent isn't just for players, talented coaches make a head coach look brilliant. Just because BB hires a coach doesn't mean they automatically know what he knows, they don't automatically fill the void left by a coach 20+ years his senior.

This is more likely the root cause of early exits from playoffs, later round draft picks, coaches less experienced that don't tell their head coach obvious weaknesses or flaws in the depth chart, coaches less experienced on game day.

I know coaching to you isn't relevant and you worship at the talent alter but lots of overly talented teams never win. In fact it seems every year Daniel Snyder throws money at "talent" assembles another dream team only to watch them fail.

The 49ers without Jim Harbaugh had the same talent as they do with him, what changed?

Keep "broadening" one day you'll get to the point you can admit when you're wrong. The offense hasn't been good in the post season; period.

In three Super Bowls our offense brought us back from behind to win. That is the biggest, noticeable difference between that offense and our recent offense. I do find it funny that you laud the Giants for using the same style and system of offense on us that we used to run though.

The defense in the last two Super Bowls have given up fewer points than all but one of the three that we won, the Giants punted more than the Patriots did. While I don't claim the present day defenses are as good, 2001 wasn't great, the reality is that doesn't absolve the offense for turning it over twice, only scoring in the teens and having the ball with a minute left then throwing three straight incompletions.

Slowly but surely you are backtracking on how great our offense has been of late, I don't have to back off that the defense was average and played average. When you can finally admit this offense has been anemic against powerful physical defenses like the giants, Ravens, Jets when they were good and the Broncos then maybe this conversation will finally be over.

I'm quite sure you're right Wozzy. An offense that gains 315 yards per game and scores 32 TDs and 299 points over the season is clearly better than one that gains 428 yards per game and scores 57 TDs and 483 points over the season. The sun rises in the West too, the Earth is flat, and little green men wander around on Mars.

[object HTMLDivElement]

No, but the offense that scores 15.5 points per game in its last 6 straight playoff losses surely didn't compare to the dynastys ball control offense that won 3 Superbowls in 4 years.

Am I right? Or was the defense the reason we scored more and played better in all 3 phases of the game, and the defense is also now the reason our offense cant get 1st downs, extend drives, eat clock and score points in the biggest games of the year?

In the playoffs, the SB winning teams (2001, 2003, and 2004) averaged 20.8 points scored by the offense per game and 17.4 points given up by the defense per game.

The six teams you refer to (2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013) had the following per game averages in the playoffs: 24.8 points scored by the offense per game, and 21.8 points given up by the defense per game.

Obviously, the first three teams won their final games and the last six teams lost their final games. But looking at the playoffs as a whole, the first three teams were clearly weaker on offense and stronger on defense. To say that Weis's offenses were clearly better in the playoffsthan O'Brien's and McDaniels' isn't really justified by point totals. The six losing offenses averaged 4.0 points per playoff game more than the three winning teams. The six losing defenses gave up on average 4.4 points per playoff game more.

[object HTMLDivElement]

This limited mind set is the very reason this discussion lingers on.

You're a lingerer man.

The high flying pass heavy post 2007 offense scored 35 a game in the regular season, but were absolutely crushed by good playoff teams. The reason the dynasty offense scored less is because they were more concerned with balance and all 3 phases working hand in hand.

When you count 40 point blow outs against teams like Tebows Broncos and the texans, yes the post 07 playoff offense looks respectible, but when you see a Tom Brady lead offense score 14, 13, 21, 17, 13, 16(which was really 3 against denver before scrub time scoring) in 6 straight playoff losses you realize that the comparison between the 2 era's isn't even close.

But why would you let that stop you? You've come all this way....

Actually, I keep broadening my understanding of the game by analyzing the data in ever more depth. You and Wozzy long ago settled on your opinions, which is why you sit there so puzzled when Bill Belichick, seven years in, continues to field "high flying passing offenses," despite what you know is right. You're like Rusty who keeps shouting that Brady is a problem . . . and yet has to endure Belichick trotting him out every year. You and Wozzy keep complaining about the passing game and longing for more running, but Belichick keeps disappointing you.

I've found that the greatest pleasure in being a Pats fan is trying to understand why Belichick does what he does--and maybe more important, trying to understand why what Belichick does is the right thing to do, even if it seems to fly against the "wisdom" of fans like you and Wozzy. I think Belichick is hardly ever wrong when it comes to strategy. I think he's the best coach in the NFL today and maybe in the NFL's history. I want to understand why he does what he does. You and Wozzy just want to complain that he doesn't get football as well as you do.

Maybe someday he'll hear your complaints. But for now, I'm pretty happy trying to understand exactly why he's chosen to go with high flying passing offenses and why, ultimately, that was the best choice even if it didn't produce a Super Bowl ring.

Good Post. I have been part of this debate but Ive lost my fire to continue. I don't see how fans argue until their blue in the face about a Defense that was a doormat coached by BB in the SB! I mean that's all that need to be said. One of the greatest coaches in history(considered a defensive genius), in the biggest game of the year, against the same inferior opponent/personnel cannot even scheme for his defense to get off the field 2 years later in a rematch/revenge game?!?!? I mean you guys are really giving him a pass on that?? The Offense had been one dimensional. Our backs dont produce in playoffs, the O line always gets owned by the Giants yet everyone still expected Brady to produce 35 points???!! With less posessions!? NO THREE And OUTS!!?? How in the world does the best coach of all time arguably sit by and watch his D stay on the field for 40 minutes without so much of a blitz to stop the bleeding??? No one wants to admit that our Coach got out coached not once but TWICE! TWO WEEKS TO PREPARE and we looked like a mess. Brady broke a record for most completions in a row and the D broke a record for S*cking! BUT, somehow all folks see is Brady failing and the D doing what they always had so its ok?? NO, the coach should have been able to draw SOMETHING UP or you have to admit our talent on D was Horrible and who's fault it that? Idedibo starting in the SB?!? LOL

Fans need to admit that BB the G.M. has created a team that rolls in the regular season but is Ill prepared to do battle with the tough, playoff teams around the league due to all the success being on Offense led by Brady. There HAVE been numerous resources put into the D but since they were all cheap moves that caused us to start over again, we sit here 10 years after our last SB win finally talking about our Defense maybe being great again> THAT is the problem IMO....for too many years this team has been un balanced and smart teams will capalitize in the playoffs. Wozzy and True keep pointing to points allowed ignoring the fact that the Gaints were not trying to score that much...Just play keep away and play conservative on O. They knew our O would have to play hurried due to less time while Eli could eat clock, run the ball and dink and dunk. This is why T.O.P. was more important to the Giants than outscoring us. They did the same damn thing in SB 42 too, thats why its disappointed that BB lost in that fashion. He is usually great in rematches. In the last 2 SBs, despite us having some talent on the 07' team, the Defensive game plan left me sick in the stomach. Eli had lots of luck, true in 42 but leaving lil' Ellis Hobbs on Plax in the end game on all out blitz from the 15 yard line?? Yea,,,,not good, however when Peas left for Bmore, he seemed to do ok with that aggressive style because the overall talent on D there was much better. BB the GM! He is the real problem sorry to say. His best coaching job cant makeup for a team devoid of talent. NOW, we have more talent...lets see what happens this year.

"A lot of bookies are probably mad at us right now, but we don't give a damn, ... We're the champs!!"

Lets not forget the biggest dagger of all which I hate to bring up because I love BB the coach...

He told his defensive unit most of the game to cover Nicks and Cruz and leave Manningham singled and make him beat us. He stressed it again before the D took the field for the last time. When Eli dropped back and found Manningham streaking down the sideline and fit in a perfectly thrown ball between Moore and a late arriving P.Chung(back to reclaim his spot this year), I could only imagine the sick feeling that BB had in his gut. The Reason Chung was late because he was way over inside the hash looking in at Cruz as his coach instructed but Eli, being the smart QB he is, also always privy to Peytons advice from years of battle with BB spotted the mishap and knew where he wanted to go pre snap. Game Over! Another defensive collapse in the end game.

"A lot of bookies are probably mad at us right now, but we don't give a damn, ... We're the champs!!"

Lets not forget the biggest dagger of all which I hate to bring up because I love BB the coach...

He told his defensive unit most of the game to cover Nicks and Cruz and leave Manningham singled and make him beat us. He stressed it again before the D took the field for the last time. When Eli dropped back and found Manningham streaking down the sideline and fit in a perfectly thrown ball between Moore and a late arriving P.Chung(back to reclaim his spot this year), I could only imagine the sick feeling that BB had in his gut. The Reason Chung was late because he was way over inside the hash looking in at Cruz as his coach instructed but Eli, being the smart QB he is, also always privy to Peytons advice from years of battle with BB spotted the mishap and knew where he wanted to go pre snap. Game Over! Another defensive collapse in the end game.

"A lot of bookies are probably mad at us right now, but we don't give a damn, ... We're the champs!!"

Ty Law after his team defeated the Rams in SB 36.

With 3 good receivers, the pats had to pick their poison. I mean do you expect any one of our dBs that year to man up 1 on 1 with any of the giants receivers and shut them down? Sterling Moore and Patrick Chung shouldn't even have been starting for us. Sad to say the only db that played well was Arrington in the slot. Our secondary stunk and has been a thorn in our side for some time, combined of course with absolutely no pass rush in that game. I think bb has addressed that this year, we will see.

PI am not defending BB, but with limited talent on the defense in the last SB, and, Gronk out on offense, he had to come up with a fantastic gameplan just to stay in it. We did that and were a whisker away from winning. To me that is the brilliance of bb the coach. My dissatisfaction is with bb the GM. With massive draft capital over the past 7 years, I would have liked for him to sure up the secondary since Asantes departure, and add 2 strong pass rushers. I feel like the D has been drowning in mediocrity for the past 5-7 years...last year was a big step forward until injuries, this year looks even brighter.